





'!& . 




BB 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Shelf -AY1-0«1 

rtl 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 






PERSONAL RIGHTS 



VS. 



PROHIBITION 



Considered in Conjunction with the Laws of Personal Liberty 

and Responsibility* 



COPYRIGHTED BY THE AUTHOR 



l^CXR. a-- jC. 



<z~-J ■ * f« 



ft '// , • D ~° % 1 



/ 



S> :R, E S* _&. O IE 



In placing this work before the reader, the author is prompted by a desire 
to do good to all men, and fully willing that all the various opinions should 
have sway. Those that differ with us ought to be at least fair and honest in 
the difference. Not seeking to abuse or insult, for abuse is no argument. Let 
us seek in our attempts to lead men, to leave them on their own inference and 
we have done all we- can, and not unfairly dealt with any. It is not tor the 
writer to say what the action of any man shall be. We can only honestly 
submit to the judgment of all men the views we entertain. In other words, in 
serving our food for thought, we should spread it with, and in a disposition 
to allow other men to eat at will, and not engage in any attempts to cram it 
down their throats. In advocating liberty, in a word, we must be consistent, 
or we cannot else expect to move in harmony with the things we preach. In all, i 
we expect good example to come of precept, the precept must at least be fair, 
honest and clear. The example belongs to the reader. The precept to the 
writer. Let us be fearless but honest, and just in our attempts to establish 
the right G. A. LAFAYETTE, Authos. 



PERSONAL RIGHTS 



VS. 

PROHIBITION 



: T=jf THEN embarking, as we do in the present discussion, it is well to call to 
: \WuJ. mind the fact that all men have as good a right to their opinion as we. 
Therefore the object is not to prove that other men are wrong, but to 
ask which are right, we, or those who argue against us. We cannot bring this 
case within any limit save that of the intellectual, for there it is and there it 
must be settled. Nevertheless, let us bear in mind one thing, namely, that those 
who differ with us in our views will not credit us with perfect purity of motive. 
But. it is none the less, in our judgment, the duty of every man to take a posi- 
tion on any question which he believes to be right, regardless of consequences, 
and steer his course over unknown seas of inquiry, guided by the stars that never 
lie. Mercy is a gift, and all men are justified in demanding justice at the hands 
of other men. This question, as well as all others, has two sides to it, and it is 
our purpose to consider one side. Many eminent men have treated upon this 
matter in various ways, and in our judgment, one thing has been lacking in ev- 
ery instance. Namely, so discussing it as to come within the scope of every 
man's understanding. Many men of good judgement, but inferior education, 
have been unable to comprehend the ideas or arguments of these men. It is the 
purpose of this writing, then, to bring it within that scope, to discuss it in a 
plain, practical form, in a mariner that those of limited learning will be able to 
comprehend, and in reading, those of refined or advanced education will also be 
able to understand. While doing so, however, it isn't our purpose to attempt 
the establishment or toleration of any thing of a criminal character, or to uphold 
any act that may be justly styled an unreasonable one in any sense. The principle 
set forth may be represented by one who acts as the agent of another, under full 
instructions as regards the requirements connected with the discharge of his du- 
ty, and fully expressing the penalty of his failing to fill the office properly. Then, 
first we maintain, that it is not within the knowledge or power of man to draw 
from or make anything of that which he may draw from, or is the produce of 
the earth, that is, or is calculated to be injurious to him in any way, if properly 
handled, Second, that there are no limits to a man's rights, in the exercise of 
his reasoning faculties; the ocean of reason knows no serfs, in its realms there 
are no kings nor priests. Third, that the man who does not reason, must of ne- 
cessity become one of three things, an idiot, a fanatic, or a slave. In the lan- 
guage of another, the man that cannot reason is an idiot, one who will not is a 
fanatic, and the one that does not is a slave. And fourth, there is no law, nor 
can there be one, and it be a just law through which any man or party of men. 
are justified in placing a restriction on the actions of other men, in so far as they 
are individually concerned. Now, what constitutes individnal action? # The an- 
swer is— many things. For instance, a man's judgment in reference to his dress. 



PERSONAL EIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



or his will as to giving or not giving what he needs to another; further, as to how 
much he needs; also, as to his eating or drinking. Is there any law that gov- 
erns a man in reference to these things? Divine authority has established laws 
concerning them, and every man is responsible for the violation of or failing to 
fulfill them. If you take a red-hot coal in your hand you must expect to get 
it blistered. If you fail to retire at the required time, and from the effects of 
n on -sufficiency of sleep you suffer, it is because the law has been violated. If a 
man eats too much and dyspepsia follows, it may be accounted for by the same 
law. Nor can those who furnish or prepare the victuals be held accountable. 
Is there any law that provides an instrument for patting into or taking out of a 
man's stomach anything he may take or choose not to take therein, contrary to 
his will? There are instances where such is the case, but they are never found 
in the line of reasonable action. There is no such thing as a law forbidding a 
man to take poison if he will. There are laws, however, that warn him against 
it and tell him plainly what he may expect in case he takes too much. God's 
laws as to the government of mankind, in a moral sense, are always conditioned. 
He tells them what the wrong is and the penalty of it. Likewise what the right 
is and the reward of it. After having thus instructed man as regards his duty, 
he leaves him to choose for himself, as recorded: "Choose ye this day whom ye 
shall serve." These facts are proven beyond all question in the very creation of 
man. When created, imbued with a will power and reasoning faculty as he is, 
there was no law instituted by which he was forbidden to make use of them, 
Deprive him of this privilege and you have made life something not worth hav- 
ing or living for. Man is so constituted that there are two conflicting elements 
in him, which are continually at variance with each other, and the one that over- 
powers the other becomes master of the situation, for the time being, at least. 
Take the bad quality out and leave the good and you have made life monotonous. 
Take the good out and leave the bad and the result is the same. Put one with 
the other and you have made a man's life active. There is competition in him, 
so to speak, and the result is that life becomes at once of such a nature as will 
require the attention of the man. The prize striven for is the one valued. The 
man that keeps his sail in trim to catch the breezes while out upon the broad bo- 
som of the ocean of time, is the one, if any, who will reach the desired landing, 
while the one who fails to do it will be very likely to founder on a rock and make 
shipwreck of the whole affair. There is an old adage to the effect that "the gods 
help those that help themselves," and one has well written that "God's working 
in us is a motive for our working ; it is the breeze that wafts the ship along, but 
the mariner must hoist the sail to catch it. It is the rain and the sunshine 
that causes the seed to germinate and grow, but the husbandman must plow and 
sow." Put a spoonful of soda into a glass of vinegar, and you will at once see 
the effects of it. Put milk into water and you have immediately changed the 
color. So, too, with a man, give him something to do, and you have made a 
man of him; put a barrier- about him, and you have made a slave or a machine 
out of him ; he becomes no more than a horse in many respects, or like a senti- 
nel placed on duty, who walks his beat in waiting to be relieved by another. A 
man is not a man in the true sense of the term when he allows other men to reas- 
on for him. A tree that grows among the trees of a forest, will stretch high up 
in the air with little or no branches or trunk, while the one that grows out in 
the open field and meets the force of the tempest, will be of massive trunk and 



PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



have limbs strtching far out over the surface of the earth. It is the tree which 
bears fruit that is kept by the orchard-man, while the one that does not is "hewn 
down and cast into the fire." 

There is very much logic in the statement: "If you pass through an orchard 
having a tree in it that bears good fruit, you will find the ground covered with 
sticks and stones." So, too, with the man having the stamina to act for himself, 
the martyrs of all time exemplify these sayings. Even to-day they are true; some 
men will try to dictate to other men, without the authority of a God-given right. 
What man, we ask, becomes responsible for the acts of another man? If you give 
one a revolver and he shoots himself with it, am I to blame ? If a man takes 
strychnine and dies therefrm, are the people to blame because they did not pre- 
pent it, or step between him and his act? We contend that God never instituted 
any such law; nor has any man a right to do so. It is the duty of every man to 
reprove his neighbor for a wrong act performed, or about to be if he is aware of 
it. But it is not required of him to use force or violence in or for the purpose 
of preventing him from doing that which concerns himself, and not others. ~ And 
the fact that God did not create any limit to a man's thought in earthly things 
is enough to prove that any thing that is or may be the fruit of his brain will not 
injure him if made use of in a reasonable sense. And when we say reasonably, 
or used as it should be, we mean used temperately. There is not an act of a 
man's life but can be indulged in intemperately, and the violation of any law 
will manifest itself in the form or action of the guilty party. It has been said 
that "as we live so we look." In other words, "We are just what we make 
ourselves." Intemperance in thought is as easily indulged in as anything else. 
Hence, when the Apostle Peter enumerated the Christian virtues, and mentioned 
temperance, among them, as one of the things necessary to make up the true 
Christian character, he meant be temperate in all things, and temperance does 
not mean total abstinence, as so many people would have us believe concerning 
ifc. There is a temperate zone, and that is not found on the side of heat or cold, 
but directly between them. The man who can see and consider all sides of a 
question is the truly temperate one, while the one that can see but one side is a 
fanatic. It is argued that unnecessary indulgence is intemperence, which, for 
the sake of the argument, we may grant to be true. But we ask all men to re- 
member that on this phase of the question the line is so closely drawn that it is 
absolutely impossible for anv man to say what is necessary in the case of another 
man. Even doctors of the same practice differ widely, many times, cooerning 
the necessary things to apply in many cases. The commandment or injunction 
is: "Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 
And Dr. Crosby well Accused those advocates of intolerance of "wringing and 
twisting the Scriptures." It is commonly argued that the Bible condemns the 
use of fermented wines, which, we contend is not true. Admittiug that Solomon 
said: "Look not upon the wine when it is red," etc. (And he, with all his wis- 
dom, might have slopped over.) The saying is of "Those who are mighty to 
drink wine; men of strength to mingle strong drink; of those who tarry long at 
the wine; those who go to seek mixed wines, and those Avho rise early in the 
morning to follow strong drink, and continue until night till wine inflames them," 
etc., showing that it is the abuse of the article, not the use, that is condemned. 
It is an easy matter to make an assertion, but quite another thing to prove it. 
This r'ass of argument is indulged in largely, seemingly forgetting that it is i 



PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



class which two can make use of. So far as that is concerned, there is just as 
much chance for one as the other, and when it comes to the facts in the case, 
the j are all on this side. Some people, who are forever trying to adopt meas- 
ures to govern others, and never govern themselves aright, would do a grander 
and more telling work merely, if they would get the scales off their own eyes, 
thus seeing clearly as to their own defects, and remove the leprosy from which 
they are suffering, thereby creating a more healthy state of affairs in society, 
and shedding a better influence about those with whom they come in contact in 
life. In other words, "The man who tends to his weeding as it should be, will 
have very little time to weed for others.' 1 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the 
beam out of thine own eye and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote 
that is in thy brother's eye." There is a great deal in this anti-stick-your-nose- 
into-other-people's-business principle. But, says one, have we not a right to in- 
terfere with the acts of the man who squanders his earnings and deprives his 
family of the necessaries of life ? Does this not concern others ? That depends. 
If in excessive drinking, we answer yes, very frankly, and, more than that, we 
do not purpose defending any law that tolerates any such thing. No man with 
common sense is fool enough to say that any man should make a hog of himself. 
If the people will grant license to sell these articles (and they have just as much 
right to grant that as uny thing else), is the man selliffff them to blame, if the 
man drinking the article sold will make a brute of himself? We say he is not. 
He may be to blame for violating the law that forbids him selling to a man un- 
der the influence of drink, if he does, or if such a law there be. But, in our 
judgment, there ought not to be any such law. If a man has not moral stamina 
enough about him to govern himself, so as not to become confirmed drunkarr 1 , 
he deserves no better fate. God is too wise to waste his time in trying to purny 
dross. Nor does he require man to waste his time in such a manner. Josh Bill- 
ings said that "trying to save such men resembles trying to put out the fire of a 
hollow log to save the log. Better let it burn; the ashes is worth more than the 
log. " But again it is argued, that the drunkard goes to hell, and we ought not 
to let him go if we could prevent it. If God, as we have shown, holds every man 
responsible for himself, which he certainly does. "Every man shall render an ac- 
count according to the deeds done in the body." If I take an ax and chop off 
my toes or fingers, or take a knife and sever the ear from my head, are vou to 
be judged for the act? "As a man seweth so shall he reap'" God has given 
every man plainly to understaud that he is "the temple of God and the spirit of 
God is in him;" in other words, his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. Now, 
if aiH man or woman defiles the temple; if he or she does, that which is calcu- 
lated to drive out the Holy Spirit from the temple, or to tear down the walls 
thereof, are not they the ones that should suffer from the fall ? 

Nor will ignorance establish an excuse for any person. It is not only required 
of man to answer for what he does know, but for what he may know as well. 
Christ, in his parable of the talents, condemned the man with the one, who hi 1 
it, while unto him with the five and with the ten, who cultivated, he said : 
"Weil done, thou good and faithful servant," etc "Seek, and ye shall find; 
knock and it shall be opened unto you; ask an. I ye shall receive." But again 
they say, this is pertaining to the service of God in religious matters it un- 
questionably signifies knowledge in the matter of a man's duty, and none will 
pretend to say that wrong is any part of that. It is every man's duty to do right. 



PEESONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



To do less is a wrong, and to do more is beyond the power of man. And as a 
responsible agent every man has a right to be governed by his own judgment, 
as to what is right in this matter. "Do right and fear naught." Will any one 
say that it is wrong to partake of wine or beer moderately or temperately ? That 
rjrinciple by which we are able to judge one thing to be right and another to be 
wrong, is the one by which men should be governed in all things. There is 
much logic in the saying: "What is one man's meat is another man's poison." 
Puritanicalism nor fanaticism cannot blend with liberalism, much less true tem- 
perance. It is argued that the fact a man's opportunity to do as he pleases is 
withdrawn doesn't touch his liberty. What, we ask, is the difference in withdraw- 
ing a man's privilege or f ordidding him to execute it ? If I place an article in 
the reach of my brother and say to him : "You shall not touch that, " and thus 
deprive him by forbiddence, or say: "You may take it," and when he reaches 
for it, withdraw it from him, in which case, I ask, have I exercised the lesser 
authority over him? Is my will any less predominant in either case? We think 
not. Is it not in either case prohibition in effect? Most assuredly it is! for it 
is by the force of my will that my brother is deprived of doing that which he 
fain would do and perhaps enjoy. The only difference that could be claimed is 
that one is local option and the other prohibition, in nature. Both are prohibi- 
tion in effect. What will apply individually, will apply collectively. Whether 
this be considered in a negative or affirmative sense, matters not, for the termi- 
nation in the case is the same. This is logical. Hence, his liberty to do as he 
pleases is withdrawn. Not only this, but absolutely prohibited. Then, so far 
as this touches the question of our personal liberty or responsibility it is a mat- 
ter of fiction and absolutely false, theoretically as well as practically. It is 
nothing more or less than a manufactured argument to suit the ends of extreme 
fanaticism. We fully discard it. That it will injure me to partake of anything, 
proves no right by which I am justified in depriving you of it if you want it. 
There is that in every man by which he is able to judge for himself, and we 
urge that it is not only the privilege but the duty of every man to be governed 
accordingly, regardless of every one's opinion. To some men it is a powerful 
recommendation, that an opinion is that of the many; to others it will appear 
as an infallible criterion of error, but to the man who is truly rational it will be 
neither. There are two classes of men in this world. One of them may be jnst- 
ly styled putty men- or men of clay. You can see the impression of everything 
they come in contact with on them. The other may be styled men of iron. 
They leave their impression on everything they come in contact with. If 
any man chooses to be a total abstainer, let him be one. All we have to say to 
him in the matter is: Be a man; don't lean on other men; don't be trying to 
make laws to govern other people. By what authority does any man become 
subject to the dictates of another man within reasonable limits in this matter? 
We repeat that such a man is not a man but a machine. What good is a man if 
there must be a law to protect him or guard against his following in the way 
his hellish appetite or desires might lead him? We might as well talk of making 
a law to prevent a man from drowning if he should jump into the Niagara and al- 
low himself to go over the falls. As well talk of making a law to prevent men 
from going out to sea in small boats, because there is danger of being drowned. 
No man or party of men has any right to interfere with personal liberty in any 
sense. No wonder men complain who left their homes in foreign lands and came 



PERSONAL EIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



to this, the supposed land of the free, where some men would make tnem live in 
subjection to that which is worse by far than serving any king. The Israelites 
sacrificed their liberty as established under the leadership of Moses, and since 
the death of Solomon, with whose death went down the glory and power of that 
empire, they have not had a representative on the face of the earth. Half of the 
ideas or laws governing men in these days come in the line of impulsive measures, 
and especially those of a religious or moral character. Men assemble themselves 
together and after slight deliberation, they conclude that this or that is the best 
way to do thus and so, and too many times act accordingly, directly the contrary 
to reason. In other words, they erect an altar to an idea, then worship it; and 
the more they bow, the more bright and glorious it seems. We do not object, 
however, to anv man's having or being governed by his own ideas, or any party 
of men. Nor have we any right to ; neither do we claim any. But we have a 
right, and shall claim it, to prevent other men from erecting an altar to the wor- 
ship of their god on our grounds, or within the limits of the rights we are justi- 
fied in demanding. There is too much of this do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do prac- 
tice. It is an easy matter to teach by precept, but it costs an effort to set a good 
example. Too much zeal and not enough judgment. If men wo aid act wisely 
they should instill into the minds of the young the danger of meddling too freely 
with anything that is calculated to prove ungenerous. Better by far leave a raz- 
or in reach of a child and teach him the danger of molesting it, than put it out 
of his sight and bring him up in ignorauce as to what a razor is or what it is used 
for. It is fallacious to say that a child shall be kept entirely from the wrong 
until the years of maturity. This has been proven. A large percentage of such 
turn to the worst. While a larger percentage of those who are properly trained 
in an immediate state, make a success of life in every essential particular. Teach 
a child the enormity of theft instead of whipping him for stealing, is a true, mor- 
al, temperate principle. Without stopping to argue this particular phase, suffice 
it to say that we need but to examine the history of many great men to satisfy 
ourselves on these points. All humanity should be then taught the good and 
the evil of all things. In other words, it is necessarv to proper action in any 
case that we understand both sides of it. This holds good in all decisions, 
"Tram up a child in the way he should go, and when he is older he will not de- 
part from it," says Solomon; and this same Solomon said: "If thoa art wise, 
thou art wise for thyself, but if thou neglectest thou alone must suffer." "As 
the twig is bent so the so the tree is inclined," says another, and in our judgment 
the twig should be bent to grow straight up, so to speak; neither to one or the 
other side, but straight up. Self-reliance in after life depends upon the culti- 
vation of self reliance in former life. "Self preservation is the first law of na- 
ture," and "the man that neglects his own household is worse than. an infidel." 
As a people we pride ourselves on these things largely; yet some of us would do 
that which is directly the contrary to it in the establishment of authority. It is 
a mistaken idea that men can. establish authority by dictation better, or even so 
well, as by love, persuasion, reason or arbitration. Sir P. Powell said in the 
year 1300: "Always thoroughly consider the reason of a case, for wbere there 
is no reason there can be no law." If you take a ring to a jeweler, he will not 
testify as to the qualitv of it without an examination. The chemist will not 
guarantee the quality of anything until he has first analyzed it. A thing may 
look right and seemingly have no flaw in it, but it is not right in the true sensed 



PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



of the term until it has been proven to be so. Hence, it is that all men should 
first prove the correctness of their position before they undertake to guide other 
men. In the deliberations of justice and in the establishment of authority, rea- 
son ought to be the only law-giver. No man lias any right to hit another man on 
the head, nor is there any law that will uphold him in so doing. All men, how- 
ever, are justified in reasoning with other men, and it is the duty of every man 
to listen with respect, at least, to the ideas or arguments of other men. God 
never made one class of men to ride booted and spurred over the necks of other 
men. When Abraham Lincoln, with one stroke of his pen, loosened the shack- 
les from four million slaves, we supposed this was finished in America. What 
©onsticutes liberty? Self- Government. And when the late President Garfield 
said that he was "a temperance man, but not in that narrow-minded sense which 
so many men are," he covered the whole scope of the argument. If there is 
anything that a man is deserving of credit for, it is for daring to exercise freedom 
of thought on any subject. 

Some men argue that there is no such thing as personal rights. It is useless 
to deny that lines of demarcation exist in political, in social, in religious, in so- 
ciety and all other relations in life; and in proportion as they exist in these af- 
fairs, so they do in respect to personal rights. No amount of argument or asser- 
tion can ever gainsay this, and to become reconciled to it is one of the first 
duties we owe to ourselves and the rights of others. Personal rights consist of 
the exercise of all rights that may be enjoyed within that sphere in which one's 
rights may be enjoyed without infringing on the rights of others. When Jef- 
ferson was asked to define personal rights, he said they ended "where other 
rights began/*' True! 

None but the brave dare think and express their honest thoughts. The 
man in our judgment, is worth very little who has not an independent opinion 
of his own, and the one who has such, and is too weak in the spinal column 
to stand by and defend it, is worth still less. Men can never be free until they 
learn to think for themselves. Many men have their hobby, however. If all 
men were governed by the true laws of temperance there would be no such 
horrors to picture resulting from the use of these articles, as the advocates of 
intolerance dwell upon. The moral worker, in the true sense of the term, is 
the one who keeps his own body in subjection to the law. One of the funda- 
mental ideas of divine law is that of self government. Christ taught this em- 
phatically, and Paul praised himself very much in keeping his own body in 
"subjection to the law," yet with all. was the one who recommended the use 
of wine "for the stomach's sake. He that conquereth himself is greater than 
the man that takes a city." Then see to it that you do this. Allow no one 
to crowd an idea upon you. "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which 
is good." The man that believes is like a bird in a cage, while the one of free 
thought resembles the eagle who knows no bounds to the space in which he 
moves. Then will you be caged and deprived of those privileges which God 
has given to all men and it is their rights to enjoy? Wili you suffer the banner 
of personal liberty to be trampled underfoot, and the principles of dictation to 
take the place of reason? There is but oneway by which men are justified in die- 
tatingto other men, thisbylaw. All men are subject to law, however. To make 
a law they must have a majority, and to get a majority they have to educate 
public sentiment' up to a standpoint where it will enact such laws, or put mea 



10 PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



ino^ce who will legislate to such effect. To educate public sentiment they must 
appeal to the reason of mankind, and there is where the law of independence 
does and should assert itself. It has been asserted that "might makes right," 
but this is not always true. A thing that is morally wrong can never be made 
legally right. A law may compel one to do anything because it is a law, but 
this does not always prove the law right. We contend that it is a greater 
wrong to attempt a restriction of man's thought or liberty in these matters, 
than to confine him in his rights as an American citizen. (And here you will 
discover that we place attempt on a level with absolute action.) A man's 
thought is something that cannot be hampered. You may shut his mouth 
but you cannot stop his thinking. A man of old was once compelled on 
bended knee to take an oath he would cease to preach that the world moved, 
which he did, but when rising to his feet he muttered "the world moves for all 
of that." So, too, in these days, men will express their thoughts and largely, if 
not fully, be governed by them, notwithstanding some men have and do preach 
this, that and the other dogmatism. They have preached hell-fire and brim- 
stone just so long as it would be adhered to, but the day has come when it is 
looked upon largely as a sort of fiction, and means to convey terror to the 
minds of the ignorant. The more men believe the less they are naturally apt 
to know. 

Men will not be elbowed into heaven, so to speak, or deprived of the privil- 
ege of braathing half the journey for the benefit of getting there. We don't be- 
lieve that God is so unwise as to entirely damn anything he has ever made or 
ever will make. Some people would have you and me believe that all men be- 
came drunkards from the fact that they take a drink occasionally What 
man, we ask, is inclined to be governed by such an idea as this? Thef* , that 
I may, will or have started on a journey is no proof that I am bound to con- 
tinue on it, nor that I am compelled to pursue it any further than I choose. 
There may be, and doubtless are, cases where men have acquired an appetite 
for drink to such an extent that it is necessary for them to abstain from it 
entirely to protect themselves from the evils that result of indulgence. But 
to say that a man must necessarily become a drunkard from the fact that he 
takes a drink occasionally, is poor logic, and untrue alike in theory and prac- 
tice. No fair minded man will attempt to deny these things. And to say that a 
man cannot give up his cups if he will, in our judgment is shere nonsense. When a 
man like John B.Gough did, any man can. God never made a man with a will pow- 
er so weak that he cannot make it predominant in his life if he will. The troub- 
le is men are too apt to say they can't. If a man is down and will remain there 
under the impression that he cannot rise he may continue down; but if hetrys 
and in so doing says I can and will, in nine cases out of ten he will succeed. 
There is no excuse for any man's saying that his fellow man is to blame for his 
downfall. There isn't a man in existence who ever became intoxicated a sec- 
ond time ignorant of what the effect of such a freak would be. If there ought 
to be a law to punish anybody it is the man that is so weak he cannot re- 
frain from doing that which he knows full well will lead to his ruin if indulged 
in, (and by this we mean getting drunk). Too many men have been punished 
for doing that which law provides a right to do. It is time people began to 
learn that the one to be punished is he who is guilty of the violation of law in 
the true sense. The sin is the crime of the drinker not the drink. We rei>eat 



PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. il 



that every man is responsiole for himself and should be judged accordingly. 
That habitual drunkards get drunk or even that other men become intoxicat- 
ed is no reason why the man that sells should be punished. You might keep 
a drunkard from getting bread but you cannot keep him from getting rum so 
long as it is made and he is at liberty. All the laws that ever were or can be 
enacted would be of no avail. And to talk of making a law to prohibit the 
manufacture of it will do very well for talk, but so long as it is drank 
it will be made, and so long as it is made it will be drank. Ex-Presi- 
dent Lewer of the brewers congress says that: "men have been 
drinking their beer during all time and they will drink it for all time 
to come, in spiteof all the efforts of a sickly setolfanaticalhypocritsandfools." 
It requires no farther argument to prove this than the fact that for over two 
thousand years men have been trying to stop its manufacture and to-day- 
there is more made and used than there ever was before. Men have always 
drank their wine; many of the earliest Christians drank it. All the apostles 
together with Christ drank it. But is this true, someone says. Let us see. 
Asa proof of it what were his last words concerning it? as recorded by Matthew, 
as follows: "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of 
the vine until that day that I drink it anew in the kingdom of God. Now 
what does the word henceforth signify? That I will not drink of this from 
this time on until that day, showing that he did drink on that particular 
occasion. And the words made use of by Mark are as forcible in their mean- 
ins to that effect. I will drink no more signifies that he did drink upon that 
occasion. There is no other place in the Bible, we believe, where there is any- 
thing said about his having or not having drank wine. 

Examine and prove for yourself. Then if this man Christ, with all the 
knowledge he possessed didn't pronounce a curse upon this article, by what 
authority do we strike a blow at its roots? 

His miraculous carrier was ushered in with the manufacture of wine at the 
marriage feast in Cainnan of Galilee, and his farewell passover was crowned 
with the filling, passing and drinking of the contents of the wine cup at the 
last supper. 

Again I ask if this man Christ who came not to destroy but to fulfill, did 
not condemn, by what authority do we? 

It isn't in the province of the church to do it. Nor can law — legally speak- 
ing — regulate this thing. It is a moral reform question as men will so they 
must suffer, "as the tree falls so it lieth." 

"As Almighty God has been pleased to leave us our free will, the reason is 
not evident why frail man should seek to take it away. Why should he be 
wise above what is written? Has Almighty God failed his church? Are we 
prepared to admit that Christianity is a miscarriage? This we tacitly do 
when we invoke to her aid the arm of the civil law. It has at no time been, 
nof is it now, any part of the teaching of the church that her children shall 
not manufacture, buy, sell, and use should they be so disposed vinous, malt, 
or spiritous liquors drink. Now we should not in the least object to any 
well-devised and practical legislation that would do away wioh drunkenness 
entirely, if that were possible, which it unfortunately is not; nor will it ever 
be the case so long as the human race exists upon earth. We, for our 
cart fully bel'eve ii? rendering to Caesar what belongs to him; but it is 



12 



PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



the province of the church, representing: God upon earth— of religion, in oth- 
er words— so to dispose man as to enable him to withstand temptation to sin 
and crime; and the business of the civil power to punish him for offences com- 
mitted., not to remove all temptation to wrong-doing. The assumption, there- 
fore, by the civil law, of the divinely conferred duty and prerogative of the 
church would, in any case, be a usurpation, were it even practicable. The 
whole matter of personal reform lies within the domain of the church, upon 
which region the civil power has no right to trench. Legislators forget what 
the church always bear carefully in mind and has always inculcated — viz.: that 
drunkenness is the sin not of the drink but of the drunkard. It is not the pro- 
vince of civil government to remove temptation to the infraction of the mora 1 
law; its province is to keep order and punish infractions of law. All theolo- 
gians assure us that this is a state of probation, nor is it the business of the 
civil code either to abolish property lest many may steal, or to suppress the 
manufacturing of liquor lest some shame themselves and sin against God by 
getting drunk." 

This is final. 

If it was right that wine should be banished it would require no thumbscrew 
law to suppress it. Right will come out ahead in a fair field light every time. 
If these would-be law makershad to wear theyoke they would so readily place 
upon you and me and all men, it would soon become irksome to them. It has 
been well said that this temperance question should be kept out of politics. 
There can be no harm done by putting temperance into politics, but it is sure 
disaster to put politics into temperance, in other words, to make it a political 
question. Tne temperance question is not a political but a moral one. When 
we hear a man talking temperance, and calling it a political question, we are 
constrained to say: that man was either deprived of proper training when 
young or God left out something in creation, and of course if he does not know 
any better, why he is not to blame. Let every man remember that temperance 
means govern yourself, while prohibition means the adoption of a measure by 
which you purpose to govern some one else, or prescribe a rule for them to 
be governed by. The days of sumptuary legislation are among those 
of the past and cannot be lawfully brought into practice under our form 
of government. The Hon. John Sherman covered the ground when at 
Aliahce, Ohio, he used the following language: "All parties to be use 
ful must be formed upon political ideas, which effect the framework of 
our government, and the rights and immunities secured by law. Questions 
based upon religion, temperance and morality, in all their variou_> forms, 
ought not to be the basis of parties." In our judgment such things should 
be left to the individual consciences of men. Nor should any belief or principle 
become the guide of any man in these matters, save and except that which 
may be established by his own reasoning. And all men who can reason at all 
are justified in being governed by this ruling. God, in his word, asks man to 
reason with him, wherein he says: "Come, let us reason together.' 1 This the 
highest privilege, and most humane right given to man. Reason includes it 
all And if God asks me or you to reason with him, it is too much fox me to 
ask you to reason with me or to reason together and be governed by your 
own reasoning. We think not. God never asked mankind to do anything 
that he will damn him for. doing. Neither did he ask me to do a thing that 



PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 13 



he will damn rae for asking you to do. We have endeavored in a brief way 
to point out the reasons why men should be governed by that principle 
that admits of no right under which men may infringe upon the rights of 
other men, and we trust we have said something that will enable them to 
live as noble men and women, and better fill their calling and honor their All- 
wise Creator. We desire in conclusion to call the readers' attention to one 
further point in the case. It has been asserted that "arbitrarie belief is the 
foundation of all reasoning," which to a certain extent we may coincide to be 
true, but to say it is true as a whole is to say that which is not true. A man 
as a matter of course must be governed by this principle in his younger days, 
before he arrives at the years of maturity. Nevertheless, there is no law' that 
compels him to be governed by it after having arrived at that age wherein he 
is able to and is justified in reasoning for himself. An illustration will per- 
haps suffice to more fully demonstrate the idea. T^ie tree, so to speak, may 
sprought and grow on the soil of belief; its roots may run out into it very far; 
yet as the tree grows and reaches a certain age you will d" cern a branch here, 
another there and elsewhere that is withered and of no use, and the process 
of grafting is put in operation; thus you continue. After a time you may dis- 
cover a defect in the trunk, the soil will be found to be not of the proper na- 
ture; you cultivate it, the result ot which is in time that the tree has practi- 
cally undergone the process of regeneration, so to speak; and where as the 
man once reasoned from what he believed, he now believes from what he 
reasons. In other words, instead of his being goverenedby what he is taught, 
he is now governed by his own better judgment. Thus he fulfills the law of 
iiberty as laid down to man in his quality as a free moral agent. Thus he 
becomes that which God designed him to be, a man and not a machine; his 
own master and not a slave. Then see to it that you are governed by this 
law of reason. Let none bring you in subjection to anything that does not 
meet the approval of your better judgment. Bear ye everyone his own bur- 
dens, and thus fulfill the law and live to a true and noble purpose. Erect to 
yourselves a temple of self government, the base of which shall be laid deeper 
than the whims of foolish and designing men, whose pillars shall rest upon the 
eternal walls of justice and righteousness, and whose dome shall rise until its 
top reaches the celestial city of God. In the language of Bryant, "so live that 
when thy summons comes to join that innumerable caravan which moves 
toward that mysterious realm where each shall take his chamber in the silent 
hall of death, than go not like the quarry slave at night scourged to his dun- 
geon, but sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave 
like one who wraps the drapery of his couch about him and lies down to 
pleasant dreams." Above all be faithful to self. Be firm in resolution. A 
resolution well kept is the greatest proof of man's character. 

Irresolution is faithlessness to self. It is but little less contemptible than 
faithlessness to friends. Indeed, a man faithless to his personality hardly can 
be faithful to the friends and duties of that personality. Every intelligent 
resolution is a promise made to one's own character, and upon its fulfillment 
the integrity of character depends. A promise can be dissolved only by the 
consent of both parties; a resolution, therefore, is, in a sense, indissoluble, for 
there are no two parties to give such consent. In common with a promise, a 
resolution can be broken only when its fulfillment involves an immorality. 



M PERSONAL RIGHTS vs. PROHIBITION. 



Tentative plans may be changed at will; but no inconvenience, nor any da»> 
ger, can justify the non-fulfillment of a sacred resolution. Every man should 
be a law unto himself. The world will never be what it ought until we live under 
a system in which every man is his own king so to speak, from a God given idea* 

With God, by individual man must become the bases of action and judg- 
ment. Man shall answer to God for his deed's not man! As free and as in4e- 
ffendent in the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should the 
citizen be as the flag that represents our nation. He should live in an social 
tftraosphere as free as the winds that fan her, short of this he is not what, he 
ought to be as an American, and his citizenship is aliebel on the true signifiance 
of the true American citizen . Liberalism not contaminated with licentiousness is 
the right and ought to be the practice of every free man. Men are not free 
only as they are the masters of their own thoughts. And the highest liberty 
one can enjoy is to keep his own self concerned, self made and self responsible 
resolutions; for he who forgets himself forgets all. Therefore be temperate in 
all things. Remember the injunction to do all to the honor of God. 

Above all be not excessive. Be moderate, remembering that in the accom- 
plishment of self-control we master the most of all difficult things to do. As 
a rule a man's worst enemy is himself, and to guard against being overswayed 
by passion, or led by vice into the practice of intemperate habits is our 
grvatest duty. The world is made up of mistakes, and men at best are in 
most cases but an evidence of the fact that "to err is human, but to lorgive 
divine." When we attach the idea of wue temperance to anything we have 
applied the highest elements of reason and taught the utmost justice. Let us 
be temperate, not excessive, in ail things. 

Having done this you have done all; and being judged according to the deeds 
done in the body, your reward must be right. Above all be honest in convic- 
tion and practice. Remembering that if approved of by your own conscience 
you must be justified in condemnation or approval, and whatever be your re- 
ward you will have merited it. G. A. LAFAYEras. 



I 



■ 



I 



li 

i 



..y.?MRY. OF CONGRESS t 

021 048 044 



mm 



Mm 






^ 



-2 


1 X ■■■;■£ 

f-JLl 



